Optimal balancing of multiple affective satisfaction dimensions: A case study on mobile phones

Abstract Product designers need to consider a variety of consumers’ tastes and preferences to design a product that appeals to consumers. However, it is often difficult for designers to find optimal design settings because a number of design features could affect the tastes and preferences. This study proposes a method for optimally balancing various affective satisfaction dimensions based on the multiple response surfaces (MRS) methodology. Applicability of the proposed method is demonstrated through a case study on mobile phone designs. A set of design values which would optimally balance the levels of luxuriousness, attractiveness, and overall satisfaction are obtained. The resulting values of design features are verified based on a similarity test. In addition, they are compared with the optimal design values obtained using a single dimension optimization method in order to show the advantages of the MRS methodology. Relevance to industry This study proposes a new way of finding design settings, which would optimally balance various needs of consumers. The resulting design values can help designers improve the consumers’ affective satisfaction toward their designs.

[1]  Myung Hwan Yun,et al.  Evaluation of product usability: development and validation of usability dimensions and design elements based on empirical models , 2000 .

[2]  K. Hsiao,et al.  Fundamental dimensions of affective responses to product shapes , 2006 .

[3]  Sadiq M. Sait,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms, simulated annealing and tabu search: a comparative study , 2001 .

[4]  Prasun Das.  CONCURRENT OPTIMIZATION OF MULTIRESPONSE PRODUCT PERFORMANCE , 1999 .

[5]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Characterizing and optimizing multi‐response processes by the taguchi method , 1988 .

[6]  Joseph J. Pignatiello,et al.  STRATEGIES FOR ROBUST MULTIRESPONSE QUALITY ENGINEERING , 1993 .

[7]  D. B. Parkinson.  Robust design by variability optimization , 1997 .

[8]  Thomas F. Coleman,et al.  Optimization Toolbox User's Guide , 1998 .

[9]  Jose Luis Duarte Ribeiro,et al.  MINIMIZING MANUFACTURING AND QUALITY COSTS IN MULTIRESPONSE OPTIMIZATION , 2000 .

[10]  Tomio Jindo,et al.  Application studies to car interior of Kansei engineering , 1997 .

[11]  Se-Kwon Kim,et al.  Extracting optimization and physical properties of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) skin gelatin compared to mammalian gelatins , 2005 .

[12]  Omer Gundogdu.  Optimal seat and suspension design for a quarter car with driver model using genetic algorithms , 2007 .

[13]  Myung Hwan Yun,et al.  Usability of consumer electronic products , 2001 .

[14]  George E. P. Box,et al.  Empirical Model‐Building and Response Surfaces , 1988 .

[15]  S. Han,et al.  A systematic approach for coupling user satisfaction with product design , 2003, Ergonomics.

[16]  A. Khuri,et al.  Simultaneous Optimization of Multiple Responses Represented by Polynomial Regression Functions , 1981 .

[17]  Wanzhu Tu,et al.  Dual response surface optimization , 1995 .

[18]  Patrick Goik,et al.  USE OF DESIRABILITY FUNCTIONS TO DETERMINE OPERATING WINDOWS FOR NEW PRODUCT DESIGNS , 1994 .

[19]  P.B.S. Reddy,et al.  Unification of robust design and goal programming for multiresponse optimization : A case study , 1997 .

[20]  G. Derringer,et al.  Simultaneous Optimization of Several Response Variables , 1980 .

[21]  Myung Hwan Yun,et al.  Identifying mobile phone design features critical to user satisfaction , 2004 .

[22]  John W. Fowler,et al.  A combined dispatching criteria approach to scheduling semiconductor manufacturing systems , 2001 .

[23]  M. Pirlot.  General local search methods , 1996 .

[24]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms , 2001, Wiley-Interscience series in systems and optimization.